news

Site Home > news home

AN ASSAULT ON LEAD BULLETS is the anti's latest tactic aimed at interfering with the economics of gun ownership and use, and it is underway.

 

Source: Jim Shepherd's Shooting Wire 

 

Left Wing Conspirators?

 

It's been several decades since anyone accused me of being left-leaning. That accusation last came after a viewing of the movie "Billy Jack" (1971) and a pitcher of $3 beer at a bar known as "Dirty Ernie's Cozy Corner" prompted me to spend $10 on a college membership to the ACLU.

The membership lapsed in 1972 - a year to the day after seeing "Billy Jack". Since then, most have accused me of a very rapid march toward conservatism. Personally, I've always considered myself fairly even-handed. As a reporter, knowing and recognizing your personal biases helps keep them out of your work.

Imagine my surprise when my report on the petition filed with the Environmental Protection Agency yesterday asking the agency to mandate removal of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle resulted in more than one reader accusing me of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That's because I quoted some of their spokespersons in that report. One reader cancelled his subscription to the Shooting Wire, calling it "your anti-Gun left wing org".

His reasoning? "All of this crap that you sent out is perpetrated by the Anti's".

Well, duh. And since when is reporting what the opposing side of an issue says being biased?

Sometimes, I'm flabbergasted when someone feels that reporting both sides of an issue is the moral equivalent of selling out or endorsing that counter viewpoint.

That kind of ready-fire-aim sort of mentality is one reason why all of us who enjoy the outdoors - and shooting sports - find people occasionally looking at us like they expect us to either have horns or lack opposing thumbs. They're accustomed to seeing pro-gun or pro-hunting or pro-fishing people reacting angrily to any dissenting position.

Outraged responses are one reason that groups like the American Bird Conservancy and the Center for Biological Diversity can get mainstream news coverage that is essentially a regurgitation of their press releases. We can't seem to get reporters clear on the difference between a pistol and a revolver.

We're hung up on the details while they're pushing toward their ultimate goals.

The ABC and CBD petition yesterday was positioned as "environmental" and not a threat to hunting, fishing or shooting. Yet virtually all the coverage centers around the impact on hunting and shooting. The fishing industry has remained all but invisible to this point.

To us, these environmental groups seem "out there". We're equally "out there" to them, too. Most of the people who sympathize with them are won over by the graphic photos of birds supposedly killed by ingesting lead.

Never mind that the bird was electrocuted by a high-tension line - it had lead in its system. Lead that made it so neurologically impaired that it unwittingly flew into the power line, fricasseeing itself. Call it "suicide by lead".

That sounds absurd, but that very idea (is) cited in the EPA petition. I didn't mention that point because it seemed absurd. So did their assertion that tens of millions of birds die -every year- from lead poisoning.

But their petition to the EPA is absolutely not a laughing matter.

In 90 days, the EPA will issue a ruling that will either accept or reject that petition.

Frankly, I'm not optimistic the EPA will reject it. Doing so would be to open the door to the position that "maybe some lead wasn't bad". To the EPA, all lead is dangerous. Their official policy in areas where they have authority is zero tolerance.

Lisa P. Jackson, the EPA administrator has 17,000 people under her direction, all working to "usher in a green economy, address health threats from toxins and pollution, and renew public trust in EPA's work." That's a direct quote from their website. When it comes to "multimedia pollutants" -lead leads their list, beating out arsenic, asbestos, benzene, cyanide, mercury, MTBEs and PCBs.

Lisa Jackson is the same lady who singlehandedly prevented New Jersey's using depredation hunts to control the state's booming black bear population. Her opinion wasn't based on science; it was based on her boss saying he was against hunting.

The outdoor community - myself included - had some very negative things to say about her ignoring proven best-practices for wildlife control. She didn't get cashiered, she got promoted to a federal agency that has the potential to declare lead in ammunition and fishing tackle as a public health risk and mandate its removal.

Think she'll side with the outdoor community? Me neither.

It may be the only way to avoid a ban on lead in ammunition today - which is probably inevitable at some point- is to set two federal agencies against each other. One agency (the IRS) has control over "ammunition" because of its eleven percent excise tax. The other agency (the EPA) wants one of those ammunition components -lead- out.

The environmentalist petition raises the point that the EPA has always mandated the removal of harmful substances if - and when- a viable alternative exists.

They're pointing to nearly two decades of waterfowling and hunters in California continuing to harvest big game with non-toxic ammunition as evidence that it's time for the EPA to mandate the lead component be replaced with an alternative material.

Candidly, there are very few people in the outdoor industry who didn't see this coming.

Last night, when I appeared on NRA Radio's "Cam and Company" Cam reminded me that the Center For Biological Diversity had told its membership -weeks ago- that it was going to embark on this "once in a lifetime opportunity" to hammer hunting and fishing on the matter of lead.

It was the equivalent of what political fundraisers used to call an "altar call" - appealing to an issue that many of their supporters hold so dear they just can't make out their checks fast enough.

The CBD isn't about biology or diversity; it's about imposing their agenda on the masses. I don't know about all the individuals or even all the groups that are parties to their petition, but I know enough of them to know they're being bankrolled by "the usual suspects" when it comes to anti-gun/hunting/fishing campaigns.


Pointing that out doesn't mean I agree with them; I do not. Neither does that disagreement mean I do not feel that we could have avoided this situation -and held the moral high ground- by making the decision as an industry that we would phase out lead in an orderly fashion. When that was suggested two years ago at a Shooting Sports Summit it kicked off a response that was, well, heated.

Today, ammunition is our most vulnerable point, not the Second Amendment. The American public has never sympathized with the anti-gun position, although many think some reasonable restrictions are, well, reasonable. I happen to disagree- strongly-with that idea. Any restriction of a right is wrong. A "right" constrained is a "wrong".

Like it or not, the lead issue is in play in Washington.

I didn't cause it, but I did report it.

As always, we'll keep you posted.

--Jim Shepherd

 



Uploaded: 8/5/2010